Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

You Idiots

Last response: in Video Games
Share
January 3, 2008 9:01:38 PM

Yes I am talking about you...all you who post on here talking about how great the latest games are and all you reviewers who are giving games good reviews while not pointing out why they obviously suck.

COD4: Are you kidding me? 1) You can't even do save games. Again, playing to the lowest common denominator of intellect, console players.
2) Why not just have a long corridor with high walls? Again, playing to the lowest common denominator of console players...who wants a game where you need to use your brain and think about where you're going?
3) Let's just shoot wildly and have enemies that keep spawning out of nowhere until you move to the next checkpoint. I hate console players, they are ruining gaming.

Bioshock: No lead into an interesting story line, just start shooting and gathering resources and not have to think about strategy or conservation at all. Pathetic excuse for a "spiritual successor" to SystemShock. Again they've played to the lowest common denominator, console players, - proven by the control options menu...why make it so obvious. I couldnt even finish the game it was so retarded and predictable an disappointing.

Crysis: Far Cry 2. Thats all I have to say.


You know what we need? A game review site where they're not sell-out hacks for the console gaming industry. Notice how even obviously **** games get good reviews? How Bioshock and COD4 didn't get verbally raped by PC reviewers is beyond me...anyone? COD4 for being a console port when they claimed it was for PC, and Bioshock for the same reason (vitachambers anyone? these are obviously exclusively put in the game FOR console users).
Crysis is definitely designed for PC which is great, but as a sequel to FarCry it is pretty much what you can expect...fun, lots of eye candy, an identical story line, but leaving you thinking of why the first one was better. And much more so for Bioshock and COD4.
Nice xmass presents, but man I fear the road PC gaming is heading down. One day I'll be telling my grandkids of the glory days.

More about : idiots

January 3, 2008 9:18:04 PM

General_Disturbance ------>> nuf said :pt1cable:  :bounce: 



PS: i r b 1 dat dig COD4, i b play it on me PC, dis dat meen i r clever like u? :o 
January 3, 2008 9:31:31 PM

I agree that they need to stop selling it as a PC title but bending to the will of console gamers. BioShock comes to mind on that one. BioShock also happens to be the biggest disappointment of the year for me. Not only was it lackluster in some areas, it did excel in others, but the sheer fact that it has SecurRom on it, makes me purchasing it for a friend or family member just unthinkable.

CoD4 is a great multiplayer game. The Single player campaign was leaps and bounds better than other titles, but it could be improved upon. I play CoD4 strictly for the multiplayer, and I think it's currently the best purchase out there for PC titles aside from World In Conflict.

Crysis, there's nothing that needs to be said about this game. Everyone knows about it and everyone generally conforms to the same thoughts on it.
Related resources
January 3, 2008 9:37:56 PM

U CANT BE FRIGGIN SERIOUS. Bioshock was simply amazing. Sure the verichambers made it a lil easy but ur gonna crucify the game for that???? WOW ok watever. Crysis is a friggin visual masterpiece. Not as deep as some would like it to be but then that was never the point was it. COD4. OK UR JUST AN ASSTARD NOW. AMAZING. The portion where ur in the gillie suits sniping is one of the most tense moments that i have ever experienced in a pc game. The op has issues that can only be resolved by murder suicide. Fukk his dreams and lets move on.
January 3, 2008 9:52:06 PM

pookie said:
U CANT BE FRIGGIN SERIOUS. Bioshock was simply amazing. Sure the verichambers made it a lil easy but ur gonna crucify the game for that???? WOW ok watever. Crysis is a friggin visual masterpiece. Not as deep as some would like it to be but then that was never the point was it. COD4. OK UR JUST AN ASSTARD NOW. AMAZING. The portion where ur in the gillie suits sniping is one of the most tense moments that i have ever experienced in a pc game. The op has issues that can only be resolved by murder suicide. Fukk his dreams and lets move on.

Wow. You obviously haven't played very many PC games then, have you.
That scene in COD4 lasted all of what, 30 seconds? You prove the point of playing to the lowest common denominator...teenage boys with 30 second attention spans.
You kids are into murder suicide these days aren't you...lets just hope your junior high doesn't ever have to deal with you.
January 3, 2008 10:02:04 PM

To me COD4 wasn't all that immersive I should have played it before Crysis because all the way through I kept on trying to explore but ended up bumping into the invisable walls.
January 3, 2008 10:49:47 PM

I kinda hear where you're coming from and I don't particularly disagree with you... but I wonder what game would actually make you happy. Could you name a few?

I also agree that raters (people rating games if thats a word) are way too generous but at the same time there is a reason for it. Furthermore, people rating RPGs are people that like to play RPGs and same applies for other genre such as FPS, which might explain the enthusiastic ratings most website end up with. On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair for the publishers and/or marketing departments for a PC Shooter enthousiast to be rating a RPG game and so on.

One thing that makes or breaks on reviewers is the advantage of PC gaming and what it has to offer. Giving the same score for the same game on PC and Console doesn't make sense to me. For instance, PC games have a much greater capability of internet access and online gameplay, the controls are much different, etc. When rating "PC Games" it should be rated given the platforms capabilities which is not considered by all reviewers. Consoles may or may not be limited by this. But I don't really get your bad console gameplay type.

Personally, I would give the following games the following scores:

Crysis: 8.0/10 Graphics + Great Editor + Replay value - performance = Great
BioShock: 6.5/10 Plasma + Patch - repetitive gameplay = less than average value
Jericho: 6.5/10 Originality! + Team based action - lineare = Average Value
COD4: 7.5/10 Solid multiplayer & singleplayer campaign = Good

Now, these are all shooters (my type of games) so I wouldn't include reviews for other games I've played such as Oblivion or Hellgate London, etc. as it woulnd't be fair for the publishers. Lets say I was to give the Orange Box a 10/10 because I found the value of 3+ games for the price of one was excellent, then many people would think I am biased and so on.

Conclusion: Most people look at reviews because they usually agree with the scores given with most websites. You should only read about the bad stuff as a heads up and leave the good stuff as part of your own opinion. In your case, reviews aren't very useful because you seem to have a non-biased, non-hyped, strong personal opinion. May I recommend forums? There you will find the baddest of the bad reviews and get all the heads up possible before going to the store with that hype attitude. Just don't listen to fanboys because they will throw you off bigger than marketing departments themselves.
January 4, 2008 4:22:48 AM

Sounds like someone has gotten older, is married , their adjustable mortgage has "adjusted", and is ready to retire from gaming.
Sucks to be you.
I found those same games pretty fun. I may not be a teenager, but I teach them, so their attention spans must be contageous.
January 4, 2008 5:33:48 AM

hehe.
No, I'm a 20-something gamer with a new career and lots of money to blow on top-end systems and games...it's great to be me!
Fun games...sure. But satisfying? No. (well, Crysis was mildly). The last 10 years have seen some truly epic games, and with all the hype pushed around for some of these titles one can naively expect (hope) them to continue rasing the bar.

Good GFX alone does not raise the bar, I think many people don't realize this. Playing the same games with better gfx is not playing BETTER games. If anything, game immersion and depth has gotten worse with better gfx, perhaps because it takes so much more time to develop the environments rather than developing a good story line. Which brings me to another point: Why does it seem that the only good games lately are games that are created alongside new game engines? HL2, DOOM3, FarCry, Crysis, the list goes on. Why doesn't some company actually go and USE one of these already-made engines and create a masterpeice of a story line? The engines are there - you don't have to waste time developing ALL that code - put ALL your effort into creating an amazing game with an immersing story line.

One problem is that noone has thought of something new to shoot at and a new reason for shooting at it. We have the standards: Nazi's, Terrorists, Zombies, Aliens. For the FPS games I love, you need something to shoot at. If you can think of something NEW to shoot at you should automatically have a new reason for shooting at it, and hence should be able to come up with an original story line and create something immersive and original and great. All within reason of course....shooting kittens isn't going to sell. If you can't think of something new, think of a new reason to be shooting at them. The reason CAN BE simply that they're zombies, and hence they simply NEED shooting...but WHY are there zombies? You could do a lot with the "why" part and make an intriguing game, and this is the approach most game studios take. But the "why" starting to get too repetitive and too re-hashed.

So come people, let your creative juices out and think of new things to shoot at, for new/old reasons, or at least the same things to shoot at, for new reasons.
January 4, 2008 1:55:09 PM

I absolutely agree with the repetition aspect of shooters. It's the same thing rehashed and sold as a new title over and over. The only real thing Crysis had in comparison to it's predecessor, Far Cry, was better graphics. This doesn't justify a better game though.

As for the "why" portion you speak of, two games notably come to mind: Unreal Tournament series and Counter-Strike. They don't need a "why", it's STRICTLY multiplayer. You're shooting each other for scores and wins, nothing more nothing less.

However, every other game I can think of really fails at the "why" aspect of things. Half-Life kind of explained itself but it could have been more in-depth, but a great game nonetheless. And to touch on the graphics thing, this is true. The key to success for games these days is NOT graphics, it's scaling. Games coming out lately require far to much for your everyday PC to run, and boom, that cuts your potential buyers by ten fold.

Looking at MMORPGs vs. FPS titles is very different. MMORPGs scale to PC requirements and PC users componets VERY well, this explains how, as an example and nothing more, World of Warcraft can have some 10,000,000 users. Now compare that to, say, Counter-Strike, than compare that to the users playing Crysis. The amount of users would go from something like 10,000,000 to about 500,000, or nearly 1/20th the amount of players. Compare that total to the 50,000 or so players of Crysis and now you're at roughly 1/10th the users. Why is this? Primarily because Crysis requires SUFFICIENTLY more from a PC just to play the game, whereas Counter-Strike requires a lot less, and World of Warcraft requires even less than that.

FPS genre games need scalability and ingenuity to get them out of this "slump" if you will. I know I would by a lot more titles if my other PC could play them, but, well, due to demands of the graphics, I can't; and that's a loss in sales for those companies.
January 4, 2008 2:19:19 PM

i'm still looking forward to portal 2 (you can't say thats not innovative)
and you can't complain at the multiplayer in COD4 - its not meant to be wide open and expansive (i admit, i haven't even tried the singleplayer yet...)
January 4, 2008 2:57:28 PM

A top tier console game sells 3x as many copies as a top tier pc only game. That's why the game makers bend to console gamers. There simply aren't enough PC gamers to make it worthwhile. Crysis selling <100k copies by Christmas in the U.S. basically tells you everything you need to know.

"COD4: Are you kidding me? 1) You can't even do save games. Again, playing to the lowest common denominator of intellect, console players.
2) Why not just have a long corridor with high walls? Again, playing to the lowest common denominator of console players...who wants a game where you need to use your brain and think about where you're going?
3) Let's just shoot wildly and have enemies that keep spawning out of nowhere until you move to the next checkpoint. I hate console players, they are ruining gaming."

Where and when have action oriented fps's been any different? Oh wait, they haven't- ever. I'm 40 so I'm already telling my kids about the 'glory days'. Open environment games like Oblivion make ok rpg's but they certainly don't make good fps's. If you want to keep the tension/action high (fps's hallmark) you HAVE to have triggered events. This means that you HAVE to be put in a "corridor with high walls". Otherwise you will have to just fill the world with MORE zombies/nazi's/aliens etc.

OK, so then you want to talk about enemies. You can fill in the blank on who your enemy is, it's all been done. So, instead of telling us we need a new enemy, name a different enemy for a game company to creatively use?

So then you bring up 'why they're zombies'. OK those reasons are running pretty thin too. You basically have a)Lovecraft type, b)evil corporation, c)mind control/alien interaction. Anything else you can think of is a variation of one of those 3. The trick is to provide better/darker/scarier environments so you can survival-horror your way out. Bioshock and FEAR did ok with this- Bioshock just has too much of it.

I give Bioshock credit just for putting in a storyline. I personally would have removed about 5 levels and spent that programming time on AI. Compared to most FPS drivel- that really is a good attempt to try to deliver something different. Yup, it's System Shock 3, which was Alone in the Dark in space.

I give COD4 credit because they put in some of the best game pacing I've seen in a while combined with some very well thought out triggered events. The enemy forces you to move forward. They also kept the single player experience tight- I hate it when dev's try to make a 6 hour campaign take 12 just because they think they should. You can always play America's Army and patrol a fence for 2 hours if you want more realism.

My experience is that this last year actually had a relatively good crop of games. I think it's kind of funny that the general consensus on a few games is that they're good. You don't like them so you think everyone ELSE must be an idiot. I have a feeling you just got your ass handed to you.
January 4, 2008 3:42:45 PM

@General_Disturbance: People can have opinion's, you know. You may not like the current games but that doesn't mean they suck or that we should force ourselves to think they suck.

I'm a PC gamer, and I really mean that, my total time logged on a console FPS is about 5 minutes. I think CoD4 was an excellent game, as was Crysis. Haven't played Bioshock yet. Most reviewers and other gamers also like these games. Should a neutral observer listen to the masses or just you?
January 4, 2008 4:13:14 PM

(quote: General_Disturbance)
"hehe.
No, I'm a 20-something gamer with a new career and lots of money to blow on top-end systems and games...it's great to be me!"

To me, your profile says your about 30, you lie and right now nobody should care about your opinion but just for the hell of it, let's keep talkin about this.

If you are 30, then you should have many years worth of gaming experience, but that doesn't mean your opinion is right, it's just an opinion. If 1 review says Crysis sucks, and 10 say its great, who do you think people are going to side with?

When I played the CoD4 demo for the PC, i hated it. I hate feeling that I MUST go down this path and go through this door, I like more freedom. All the people in my clan said the multiplayer was awesome, so I picked up 2 copies for both my computers and I haven't looked back since nor will i even touch the singleplayer (Multiplayer is very fun). This is something personally I FEEL, does that mean singleplayer sucks? Of course not, but to me, I'm not much of a single player guy.

I feel you have every right to say that YOU THINK that these games suck, but I don't think you should have any right to call people idiots in your topic name/rants, this topic is no longer a discussion between the good and bads about the games, it's people trying to defend the truth of these games which they've made for themselves, and to me, have gotten very high ratings.
January 4, 2008 4:56:48 PM

sounds like he sucks, he got burned, wasted money on a top end "dell", bought all those games without playing a demo and is pissed that it's taking duke nukem forever forever to finish, but are you expecting it to be leaps beyong duke nukem 3d? I don't, it will be the REAL duke nukem 3d, sprite-less, but not a holy grail of gaming.

IMO the best games came out 10, 20 years ago, the first rts, the first fps, the first puzzle game, after that it's mostly variations on the same themes.
January 4, 2008 4:59:56 PM

Who plays COD4's single player game anyway? Multiplayer is a lot of fun.
January 4, 2008 5:11:48 PM

Trunkz_Jr said:
(quote: General_Disturbance)
"hehe.
No, I'm a 20-something gamer with a new career and lots of money to blow on top-end systems and games...it's great to be me!"

To me, your profile says your about 30, you lie and right now nobody should care about your opinion but just for the hell of it, let's keep talkin about this.

If you are 30, then you should have many years worth of gaming experience, but that doesn't mean your opinion is right, it's just an opinion. If 1 review says Crysis sucks, and 10 say its great, who do you think people are going to side with?

When I played the CoD4 demo for the PC, i hated it. I hate feeling that I MUST go down this path and go through this door, I like more freedom. All the people in my clan said the multiplayer was awesome, so I picked up 2 copies for both my computers and I haven't looked back since nor will i even touch the singleplayer (Multiplayer is very fun). This is something personally I FEEL, does that mean singleplayer sucks? Of course not, but to me, I'm not much of a single player guy.

I feel you have every right to say that YOU THINK that these games suck, but I don't think you should have any right to call people idiots in your topic name/rants, this topic is no longer a discussion between the good and bads about the games, it's people trying to defend the truth of these games which they've made for themselves, and to me, have gotten very high ratings.

tsk tsk...I just turned 30, I still feel 20's lol! Oh no now I'm a lier! lol :pt1cable: 
The people I called idiots are the people who blindly accept these games as being the best thing since sliced bread, simply because the hype engine TELLS them this is so. I read tons and tons of reviews of these games and never did they criticize the obvious lacks in them. Fun games, but clearly playing down a few notches.

January 4, 2008 5:20:31 PM

stemnin said:
sounds like he sucks, he got burned, wasted money on a top end "dell", bought all those games without playing a demo and is pissed that it's taking duke nukem forever forever to finish, but are you expecting it to be leaps beyong duke nukem 3d? I don't, it will be the REAL duke nukem 3d, sprite-less, but not a holy grail of gaming.

IMO the best games came out 10, 20 years ago, the first rts, the first fps, the first puzzle game, after that it's mostly variations on the same themes.

Actually, I have a custom built system I did myself: Q6600 @ 3.4 GHz, 2GB 4-4-4-12 OCZ HPC, HD3870 @ 820MHz Core, 2400MHz Mem, Sensheiser HD595 Headphones, ASUS Maximus Formula. BOOM you're burned! This system kills you! SuperPi 1M = 13.7 Sec!

I played all the demos too, and as I played them I felt the exact same way I do now. But I still got the full games because 1)there are no other big title games...these are them! 2) some were xmas presents, both to me and bought by me for my brothers 3) I was hoping the full game would be better.
I must admit Crysis didn't disappoint..but it is still the most unoriginal game I've played in a long time.

But you have a point...maybe it's just over-familiarity with the themes that dissapoints.

January 4, 2008 5:50:47 PM

I see nothing wrong with COD4 single player... lots of weapons, lots of original missions. No it's not a hallway game. There are lots places to flank your enemies, enviroments are very well done. Bioshock enviroments was kind of a dissapointing it's just a hallway but story was amazing so was the gameplay. Crysis obviously was not dragged down by any console concerns. It was a good game in single player. One big-ass island for you to destroy with realistic enviroments don't see anything wrong with that.
January 4, 2008 6:06:18 PM

I found Bioshock great..... once, now though, its not worth playing through a second time, I liked the storyline (i didn't care much for the gameplay, i ended up with super wrench wielding skills :lol: ) and it drove me all the way through, but now.... meanwhile the COD4 multiplayer is lasting me quite a lot longer... and im on a third playthrough of crysis, (this time on normal difficulty using only pistols....) it just manages not to get old.... I'm sorry, but I don't really see where you are coming from general disturbance, the only thing that makes a game "special" to you is when you play it with friends on lan for hours on end, with that kind of friendly, slightly unhealthy atomsphere... which is one reason i like company of heroes a lot (and that i can play halo custom edition and enjoy it :p  to reviews...)
(sorry for rambling, it was rather a stream of consciousness)
January 4, 2008 6:11:43 PM

Lots of people stayed away from Crysis cause they feared their systems wouldn't be able to handle it, plus it has EA name all over the box. :pt1cable: 

CoD4, was ok for me, this game has kept me playing longer then any of the other versions of it.
It does have its problems and is lacking stuff other games have, the only down fall of it is, its way too easy to rank up, once you do the only thing you have left to do is get the different camo for the guns and golden version.
The maps are way too small and guns need some tweaking done.

The reason Console have better sales is cause no one has to worry about if their system can run it.
Most PC users don't have top of the line systems that can run newer games, lots of people are still using 6 series video cards so theres no way they will buy Crysis or any of these newer games.
Thats why so many people play older games like CS 1.6 and Wolf-ET, those games don't require high end computer to play them.

The market is flooded with games that blow, games like Soldier of Fortune: Payback, activision-value just wanted to make quick buck by porting it to PC, the game one of the biggest flops to this day.
Has nothing in common with Soldier of Fortune 2, PayBack was made by some budget developer not Raven.

It does feel like game developers are only worrying about how good the games look these days and not how well the actual game play is, you can wrap a turd in pretty paper but its still a turd no matter how you look at it.


January 4, 2008 6:18:00 PM

not in the eyes of some dogs.... then its a sweetie :p 
January 4, 2008 6:39:48 PM

I must say that I mostly agree with General Disturbance. There is so much of PC gaming of the past that made it *so* superior that did not quite make it into the modern age.

Do you notice how many combat simulators are out nowadays? Like none. I have a souped-up pc to play games instead of a console because I want more sophisticated games than console gamers have, but sadly all of the consoles are merging into the same market as the PC gamers.

There are a few exceptions, though

Civ4
X3 Reunion (personifies why I have a PC. No A.D.D teenager would play this game)
Medievel 2 (again, too much depth for most people)

Case in point, I recently bought Fantasy Wars. It is a really rough, behind the times hex war game. If some of the more gifted game develpers made a game with exactly the same contents, only polished and deeper, man it would rule. But noone wants to make a game where you have to think.

Bioshock (7.0 Is this supposed to be a serious game?)
Call of Duty 4 (7.5 Too scripted and artificial)
Crysis (8.5 Fun, looks good, but degenerates into a console game later)


I don't want to complain too much, because the deep stradegy games for the PC are not dead yet. But it is true that console games are infecting the PC market, and thats a bad thing.
January 4, 2008 6:55:23 PM

Quote:
tsk tsk...I just turned 30, I still feel 20's lol! Oh no now I'm a lier! lol :pt1cable: 
The people I called idiots are the people who blindly accept these games as being the best thing since sliced bread, simply because the hype engine TELLS them this is so. I read tons and tons of reviews of these games and never did they criticize the obvious lacks in them. Fun games, but clearly playing down a few notches.


I don't think anyone accepts them as the "best thing since sliced bread", it's simply the best thing out at the time. In fact, I haven't seen many people say "ZOMG! COD4 is liek the bestest game evar!". They just believe it should be game of the year. If you can list a better game of the year, instead of bashing every single game that has been released, I'm all ears.

Yes, the game is short (single player at least), but it provides an extreme dynamic, entertaining game play. Also, the controls provided in the CoD franchise are the some best, all-encompassing controls as an infantry based game.

As for coming up with something unique... I'd like to see that as well, but the truth be told... there just isn't much that hasn't already been done. All that's really left for designers to do is combine those ideas, provide their own view (add their own touch), and make it better than it's predecessors.

Also, if you've just turned 30, then you should be mature enough not to call a vast majority of people idiots to prove your point. Insults never help your arguments, they merely make people ignore your opinions and focus on the fact that you're talking down to them. In the future if you'd like to prove a point, try coming in from a point of neutrality. You had plenty of good points to back your opinions / statements up, but I feel that they would have come across better had you not posted with "guns ablazing".

Anyhoo, that's my $0.02...
January 4, 2008 6:56:58 PM

General_Disturbance said:
Actually, I have a custom built system I did myself: Q6600 @ 3.4 GHz, 2GB 4-4-4-12 OCZ HPC, HD3870 @ 820MHz Core, 2400MHz Mem, Sensheiser HD595 Headphones, ASUS Maximus Formula. BOOM you're burned! This system kills you! SuperPi 1M = 13.7 Sec!

I played all the demos too, and as I played them I felt the exact same way I do now. But I still got the full games because 1)there are no other big title games...these are them! 2) some were xmas presents, both to me and bought by me for my brothers 3) I was hoping the full game would be better.
I must admit Crysis didn't disappoint..but it is still the most unoriginal game I've played in a long time.

But you have a point...maybe it's just over-familiarity with the themes that dissapoints.


.................So basically what you are saying is you have a pentium 3???? LOL............
January 4, 2008 7:10:48 PM

^^You ARE joking right?
January 4, 2008 8:28:55 PM

The basic problem on deep and complex games is that they don't sell well. A solid RTS will usually sell enough to make it worthwhile, especially with add-on packs. Strategy games and MMO's have become the real reason to hold on to a computer. Sims are just too esoteric and don't sell well. The only real way for the market to meet the wants and needs of all of you who want to be unique little snowflakes is to charge you a buttload for games that suit the few.

So ya, I understand that lots of people have all these fond memories of these great and complex computer only games but times have changed. Without wearing my rose colored glasses- I'll tell you that I thought Wizardry 7 was spectacular way back when and I bought my first sound card to hear it's stereophonic glory. I spent hours trying to get the optimum boot disk to play X-Wing. I would have had an aneurysm to have been able to play a game as good as CoD4 was back in the 80's when I was playing those games. My jaw would have dropped at the graphics, but I still would have been amazed by the rapid and tight story.

Hating consolers is like an owner of an old MG (the car, not a machine gun) hating all those new fancy vehicles that condition the air and other nonsense. Consoles are steamrollering pc's right now because they are a hugely better value. You get 90% of the graphics for 20% of the cost and you get a plug and play experience that's pretty much equal for everyone. Developers LOVE not having to worry about scaling and driver compatibility and all that crap too.

January 4, 2008 9:01:54 PM

Trunkz_Jr said:
When I played the CoD4 demo for the PC, i hated it. I hate feeling that I MUST go down this path and go through this door, I like more freedom.


Well yeah there isn't a crazy amount of freedom in an urban combat zone with machine gun nests all around you. If there was freedom, you'd probably have walked into about 4 or 5 machine gun nests easily.
January 4, 2008 10:48:12 PM

I understand and agree with the majority of what General Disturbance says, even if I'm generaly more positive, as I liked all of the games he mentioned.

There are sites and reviewers out there who are locked in to 7.5-10 scores because they're too afraid to offend the game producers.

Dupre is most certainly not afraid of expressing his opinion, as some of you might have seen with Bioshock.

As a followup, We just did a show on bad games. This raises the follow question:

What games did you play, particularly in the last year that were so bad that they were a complete waste of money?
January 4, 2008 11:42:42 PM

PC Gamer has apologized for reviews before. And never read fanboi site (ps3fanboi, xboxfanboi), try to stay with ones that are more level.. gametrailers ain't one either, they're rated the pc version of a certain game way lower than the console version, and they rarely do pc reviews. But it's a good site just for viewing trailers in HD, and screwattack/avgn.



This year I bought:
Supreme Commander
C&C3 Tiberium Wars
Guild Wars Eye of the North
Crysis
World of Warcraft, and The Burning Crusade
Orange Box
Bioshock
UT3 (given to me)

I don't know what I was thinking when I bought WoW, what a waste. Supreme Commander too, it's cool, but too boring imo, I was always a starcraft/homeworld/c&c player anyway than TA.

I only play UT3 a bit, because it lags, not many american players so most of the servers are pretty far 100+ ping. It also feels alot like UT2003 (you know the bastard child), UT4 will be the UT2004 (improvements lol).

Other than that, i'm just playing CS:S (which i've only started a few months ago, but i've owned the game since it came out).

I wouldn't say the other games are disappointing, but they could've done alot better.

Orange Box was awesome.
January 5, 2008 12:29:20 PM

SEALBoy said:
^^You ARE joking right?


No i was totally being serious, lol of corse i was joking anyone with a brain knows thats not true.
January 5, 2008 1:09:20 PM

Theres a simple problem here which i also experience. Gamers these days set their standards too high, we expect to much from developers, yes games are progressively getting better but obviously if you go out spending thousands of pounds on a top of the range system you are going to expect these games to be absolutly awesome.

They are not awesome, they are GOOD but because you expect them to be so amazing you immediately see them as total crap. Bioshock was one hell of a game, a well executed idea, perfectly polished with a great story and game play. It was short, but where else could they go with it? If you played it on Hard and really got into it, it could last a good 20 hours.

Crysis for me was a huge disappointment, i expected to emerge my self in a realistic world which i could explore. Upon playing for the first time i realized i could only play on medium settings with my 8800gts and E6600. The rocks looked like blobs and the foliage looked like it had been cut out by a child with crinkled scissors. The guns had no feeling and it took almost a whole clip to take down an enemy. The bloody gun boats had radars or something because they always manage to spot you. Put it this way, i got further in the demo than i did on the real game...

COD4 has a great story, feel, atmosphere etc, etc. Graphics are good, not trying to hard like Crysis but visually pleasing. multilayer is good, although it feels like it was ripped out of COD2 and the guns changed and i HATED COD2 multilayer.

----

If you don't find any of those impressive (which they are) try one of the latest RTS games...

- Supreme Commander (& Forged Alliance)
- World in Conflict
- Medieval Total War 2

All include fantastic single player campaign mode and the first 2 have great mutliplayer, shame the same cant be said for Medieval seen as i am a fan of the Total War series :( 

-----

Put it this way, if you are complaining about all the latest games it clearly proves that i am right in saying you standards are TO HIGH.





January 5, 2008 3:05:13 PM

uk_gangsta said:
No i was totally being serious, lol of corse i was joking anyone with a brain knows thats not true.


You never know with some people on this forum...
January 5, 2008 4:21:29 PM

2 words: Deus Ex

amazing game, more than amazing plot line, great graphics, they don't make games like that anymore

i totally agree with OP
January 6, 2008 10:52:55 PM

General_Disturbance said:
Yes I am talking about you...

Crysis: Far Cry 2. Thats all I have to say.

Crysis is definitely designed for PC which is great, but as a sequel to FarCry it is pretty much what you can expect...fun, lots of eye candy, an identical story line, but leaving you thinking of why the first one was better.


Obviously, you're not. Why you ask?

Because we're smart enough to know that Crysis IS NOT Far Cry 2.

Far Cry 2 is due for release in March.

And, did you even play Crysis? Cause I did and it's not an identical story line. Similar, yes. But that's part of being a game sequel nowadays. Just look at Halo, CoD, UT, Quake, Doom, etc., etc.
January 6, 2008 11:23:29 PM

I've been playing computer games since pong was released back in the 70's. Many of my favorite games are "block" graphics games that ran on the Commodore PET (hellfire warrior) or text based (miser, adventure, zork). However, I do love FPS games and CS (not that poor remake CS:S) is still something I play monthly even though I was one of the first 40 testers.

Here's the problem with games nowadays. It's all about making BIG bucks. To do that, they have to rush the game out the door. This means that they can't devote as much time to story as was done in the 80's/90's.

Dev's "think" (mostly because reviewer will bash them otherwise) that WE want intense, lifelike graphics over longterm play and story. Sadly, dev's have NO choice but to cow to the media. The market has no say, really we don't other than to not buy the software and they know that isn't going to happen.

I miss the days of 30-40 hour FPS's and 80 hour rpg's. I miss the days of knowing that the single player mod is going to be as good as multiplayer mode.

I miss the days of CO-OP RPG's and not having to pay to play with my friend online.

I miss the days of hosting my own "server" BY MYSELF!!! Our freedom to play when we want, without the net is being taken away.

I do agree with others that I'm tired of PC games only being ports of console games. UT3 was supposed to be designed for the PC and ported to consoles. Somewhere, all of a sudden it gets switched and no one was told before release.

Oh well.
January 7, 2008 12:21:14 AM

i agree-.. heck most new games should just be thrown in the trashcan q.q

same with MMOs... they pump them out like **** they are... none worth playing, oldest 2D games still the best there is.. see WoW ... junk but see how many they got, they pulled in the same userbase as Lineage 1 & 2 had for a decade.. but will the WoW userbase last for 10years? dont think so with the design in use.

January 7, 2008 9:08:00 AM

The problem is not the console gamers, or the mainstream games published. The more people want to play those, the better it is (more turnover). These bring in the money, and a small amount of that money can be used for investments into new innovative games that will bring gaming to a new level.

The problem is finding the golden nuggets of today's gaming market. It's a similar development as we've seen in movies with the same problem: finding the golden nuggets. If you want help with that, find review sites that really make a point about being independent. Personally I like what Rob and others are doing here on Tom's, if only because they are very clear and informative about what their personal biases are so that you can better place the review in your own spectrum of observations. There's probably other sites out there.

Truth is, there are still golden nuggets out there to be found, if you care to search some, and if you have any idea what to look for and if you do not expect a golden nugget every month of the year then I'm sure you can even be a fairly happy gaming person instead of a grumpy old fart.

Now, if your point actually is, do game publishers invest enough in potential golden nuggets, then you might have a point (although I would like to see some proof whether you have done enough nugget searching) and it would be interesting to discuss what to do about that, from a consumer point of view. You will have to do better than to call Joe average gamer an idiot, though.
January 7, 2008 1:06:57 PM

I feel loved.
January 7, 2008 6:59:59 PM

I don't play PC games. My PC is for "work" (though I'm semi-retired). My web-browsing/email-only PC has a QX6800, 8GB DDR2, 8800GTX, and a 30" 305t display. I've never installed a game on it -- ever.

I have both a PS3 and a 360 Elite. I have over 40 games between them. I don't buy/play/return, I keep all of my games, even though I may never play them again. I'm not rich, but I can afford to buy just about any reasonable toy I want. I prefer to game on my 50" 1080p Pioneer FHD1 (it's $4000 cheaper today than it was when I bought it a year ago). I bought my PS3 before Christmas 2006 off eBay for $1200. I paid $600 for my 8GB iPhone the very day AT&T began selling them. When I see something I want (within reasonable limits), I buy it. I don't mind paying a premium for being an "early adopter."

When I want to play a game -- here's a surprise -- I want to play. If I want intellectual stimulus I'll read The Mensa Bulletin or Mad Magazine. I just want to blow something up or show some pre-teen puke that a fat, old turd can take him to school on a virtual court. I don't want to think, plan, or "strategize." Role playing is for couples that enjoy a better sex life than I, or gay pride parades. I'll take my video games straight, thank you.

Now, as far as COD4 is concerned, I am having trouble with all other FPS. COD4 has spoiled me. I have Blacksite, Resistance, FEAR, Armored Assault, and a number of others, but after having completed COD4 I just can't play the others. I just got Blacksite last week and it is flat-out LAME baybee (in my best Dookie V impression)! Sure, COD4 is not perfect. Forever-spawning opposition, sometimes-quirky AI, no plot deviation, etc, but the graphics are exceptional, the game-play is generally good, and the mission variety is decent -- just the type of non-thinking-man's game I'm looking for.

So, long live the console! If you don't like it, go cry to mommy.
January 7, 2008 8:29:40 PM

bgetchel said:
I don't play PC games. My PC is for "work" (though I'm semi-retired). My web-browsing/email-only PC has a QX6800, 8GB DDR2, 8800GTX, and a 30" 305t display. I've never installed a game on it -- ever.

I have both a PS3 and a 360 Elite. I have over 40 games between them. I don't buy/play/return, I keep all of my games, even though I may never play them again. I'm not rich, but I can afford to buy just about any reasonable toy I want. I prefer to game on my 50" 1080p Pioneer FHD1 (it's $4000 cheaper today than it was when I bought it a year ago). I bought my PS3 before Christmas 2006 off eBay for $1200. I paid $600 for my 8GB iPhone the very day AT&T began selling them. When I see something I want (within reasonable limits), I buy it. I don't mind paying a premium for being an "early adopter."

When I want to play a game -- here's a surprise -- I want to play. If I want intellectual stimulus I'll read The Mensa Bulletin or Mad Magazine. I just want to blow something up or show some pre-teen puke that a fat, old turd can take him to school on a virtual court. I don't want to think, plan, or "strategize." Role playing is for couples that enjoy a better sex life than I, or gay pride parades. I'll take my video games straight, thank you.

Now, as far as COD4 is concerned, I am having trouble with all other FPS. COD4 has spoiled me. I have Blacksite, Resistance, FEAR, Armored Assault, and a number of others, but after having completed COD4 I just can't play the others. I just got Blacksite last week and it is flat-out LAME baybee (in my best Dookie V impression)! Sure, COD4 is not perfect. Forever-spawning opposition, sometimes-quirky AI, no plot deviation, etc, but the graphics are exceptional, the game-play is generally good, and the mission variety is decent -- just the type of non-thinking-man's game I'm looking for.

So, long live the console! If you don't like it, go cry to mommy.

[translation]"I have lots of money and buy whatever I want. I think I'm better and smarter then all of you. I can even name drop 'Mensa' but at the same time use cool 'net slang like 'baybee'. Oh ya and by the way I like consoles better then PC gaming."[/translation]
January 7, 2008 8:44:18 PM

purplerat said:
[translation]"I have lots of money and buy whatever I want. I think I'm better and smarter then all of you. I can even name drop 'Mensa' but at the same time use cool 'net slang like 'baybee'. Oh ya and by the way I like consoles better then PC gaming."[/translation]


Close. Very close.

January 7, 2008 8:56:30 PM

So you use a QX6800 with 8GB DDR2, and 8800GTX, and 30" display to read email and browse the web? Were you picked on as a kid and now this is your way of showing them how you're all cool and stuff?
January 7, 2008 9:34:48 PM

SEALBoy said:
So you use a QX6800 with 8GB DDR2, and 8800GTX, and 30" display to read email and browse the web? Were you picked on as a kid and now this is your way of showing them how you're all cool and stuff?


OK, you got me there. I also rip a fair amount of x264 stuff, so it comes in handy then.

Oh... and I use Skype, so that should address any concerns about underutilization.

January 8, 2008 7:19:01 AM

bgetchel said:
I don't play PC games. My PC is for "work" (though I'm semi-retired). My web-browsing/email-only PC has a QX6800, 8GB DDR2, 8800GTX, and a 30" 305t display. I've never installed a game on it -- ever.
...blahblahblah...

So, long live the console! If you don't like it, go cry to mommy.


Is this a lame-ass attempt to discredit console gamers? :sarcastic: 
January 8, 2008 1:52:43 PM

If anyone read my previous post you will know my stance on games. However, regarding consoles i own an xbox 360 and its great. Personally i use my xbox for a laugh and fun with mate and my PC primarily for more serious gaming.

Stop making cheep shots at bgetchel, how can you debate a matter regarding consoles ruining games if when a console player comes along you all slag him off?

bgtchel can do what he wants we are all different, the only reason you are taking a crack at him is because he has a better system than you which he doesn't use for the same things you would.
January 9, 2008 4:46:31 AM

I don't know that it's taking cheap shots when someone put themselves out there like that, he's making a lot of "assumptions" that I won't bother with. I do agree that people should do what they want, but if your going to post in a public forum then your going to get critqued whether your trying to be a jerk or not. It didn't sound like it to me, but I don't know the guy.
January 9, 2008 11:55:01 AM

Somehow he´s right. All these games are just different looking shooters with not too much depth.

I mean seriously. Are you not getting bored running around killing everyone on sight in every game, no matter how different it might look?

The industry is wondering why games sell badly. Well thats the reason, because it´s always the same.

Ok. The nanosuit is nice, but thats just one gimmik. The Crysis graphics is nice, but just on highend PC´s.

xxxgames 3, 4, 5 all just a sequel of sucessful games trying to make much money with cheap production since the base of the game is already there.

Crysis is just a Farcry 3 with a different name and ofc much better looks.

I did not buy any of the mentioned, although I played the demo´s. I´m not interested into shooters too much. It´s always mainly the same. Go, kill, win and live with a boring end. Many game devellopers seem to think that closure isnt necessary but it spoils the fun (not that I would know how the games mentioned would be ending :) .

Innovation is just made in terms of looks and the other important parts of games becoming extinct.
January 9, 2008 12:01:51 PM

puglet said:
I own an xbox 360 and its great.

Every console who has to be reset to play a new game is imho a big pile of crap.

Thats where the PS3 is really nice.

Anyways, I´ll not buy a console until the are improved with mouse/keyboard controller.

Gamepads ftl!
January 9, 2008 1:19:25 PM

bgetchel said:
I don't play PC games. My PC is for "work" (though I'm semi-retired). My web-browsing/email-only PC has a QX6800, 8GB DDR2, 8800GTX, and a 30" 305t display. I've never installed a game on it -- ever.

I have both a PS3 and a 360 Elite. I have over 40 games between them. I don't buy/play/return, I keep all of my games, even though I may never play them again. I'm not rich, but I can afford to buy just about any reasonable toy I want. I prefer to game on my 50" 1080p Pioneer FHD1 (it's $4000 cheaper today than it was when I bought it a year ago). I bought my PS3 before Christmas 2006 off eBay for $1200. I paid $600 for my 8GB iPhone the very day AT&T began selling them. When I see something I want (within reasonable limits), I buy it. I don't mind paying a premium for being an "early adopter."

When I want to play a game -- here's a surprise -- I want to play. If I want intellectual stimulus I'll read The Mensa Bulletin or Mad Magazine. I just want to blow something up or show some pre-teen puke that a fat, old turd can take him to school on a virtual court. I don't want to think, plan, or "strategize." Role playing is for couples that enjoy a better sex life than I, or gay pride parades. I'll take my video games straight, thank you.

Now, as far as COD4 is concerned, I am having trouble with all other FPS. COD4 has spoiled me. I have Blacksite, Resistance, FEAR, Armored Assault, and a number of others, but after having completed COD4 I just can't play the others. I just got Blacksite last week and it is flat-out LAME baybee (in my best Dookie V impression)! Sure, COD4 is not perfect. Forever-spawning opposition, sometimes-quirky AI, no plot deviation, etc, but the graphics are exceptional, the game-play is generally good, and the mission variety is decent -- just the type of non-thinking-man's game I'm looking for.

So, long live the console! If you don't like it, go cry to mommy.
What kind of idiot buys a QX6850 and an 8800GTX for office use? Also, why are you bragging about paying $1200 for a PS3 off ebay? Just goes to show you, money does not = intelligence.
!